uot;
Subject: Re: Olympus going pro
> On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, [iso-8859-1] Pål Jensen wrote:
> > But thats not true. The Olympus loook like no other 35mm interchangeable
> > lens SLR and the design is original Olympus and not a wholsale,
> > uncritical adoption of the latest Nikon/Canon
On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, William Robb wrote:
> Lawrence, you are coming close to the same obduracy regarding the Oly.
Yeah, I know. I'd better stop now... those comments regarding Olympus
were more of a tongue-in-cheek using Pal's line of arguments :-)
Just want to show how contradictory his view is
> How can you call it original when it looks exactly like its ZLR models?
> Whether the lens is interchangeable or not, people can't tell without
> close examination. To most people's eyes, this is NOT an original design.
> We saw it before in Minolta Dimage 7, Nikon Coolpix 5700, FujiFilm S602...
On 4 Mar 2003 at 19:55, Bruce Rubenstein wrote:
> It depends on the camera; some they buy some they make. I read that they
> buy the one in the 14n.
True, the sensor for the 14n is supplied by FillFactory and it's fabricated by
Tower Semiconductor in Israel. Out of interest they use 200mm wafer
It depends on the camera; some they buy some they make. I read that they
buy the one in the 14n.
BR
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kodak doesn't make the chips in their own DSLR, I don't think this is
likely. They probably own the intellectual property.
Lawrence wrote:
> How can you call it original when it looks exactly like its ZLR models?
Because it is an original Olympus design, not copied from Nikon and Canon. It
signalize new, high-tech and digital. No one would mistake it for a Nikon F80 or a
Rebel.
> Judging by the posts in this list
On 4 Mar 2003 at 18:10, Lawrence Kwan wrote:
> How can you call it original when it looks exactly like its ZLR models?
> Whether the lens is interchangeable or not, people can't tell without
> close examination. To most people's eyes, this is NOT an original design.
> We saw it before in Minolta
On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, [iso-8859-1] Pål Jensen wrote:
> But thats not true. The Olympus loook like no other 35mm interchangeable
> lens SLR and the design is original Olympus and not a wholsale,
> uncritical adoption of the latest Nikon/Canon product.
How can you call it original when it looks exactl
On 4 Mar 2003 at 13:33, Lawrence Kwan wrote:
> In case you did not realize, those comments are directed to Pal. I was
> just puzzled how he can write off *ist D based on its looks. Pal stated
> that *ist D styling was unoriginal, unimaginative, non-sexy and
> derivative; and therefore it has no
- Original Message -
From: "Joe Wilensky"
Subject: OT: Olympus OM77AF (Was: Olympus going pro)
> Why did the Olympus OM77AF flop? I've come across the original ads
> for it recently in Pop Photo when doing some Pentax research. It was
> a bit ungainly looking, bu
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Jansen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Lawrence wrote:
>
> "Yet, Pal is raving it as a
> > true professional
> > system.
> >
> > I personally thinks Pentax *ist D looks way better
> > than the Olympus, and
> > more like a real SLR rather than Olympus' ZLR lo
Lawrence wrote:
> My point is that Olympus 4/3 SLR is just as unoriginal, unimaginative,
> non-sexy and derivative. Yet, Pal is raving it as a true professional
> system.
But thats not true. The Olympus loook like no other 35mm interchangeable lens SLR and
the design is original Olympus and not
Lawrence wrote:
"Yet, Pal is raving it as a
> true professional
> system.
>
> I personally thinks Pentax *ist D looks way better
> than the Olympus, and
> more like a real SLR rather than Olympus' ZLR look."
Yup. The Olydak is an E20 without a glued-on lens.
Talk about unoriginal. Boring. At th
On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Rob Studdert wrote:
> > Far from bland? But it looks exactly like its ZLR models E10 and E20.
> > it is not sexy, and it hardly looks professional.
> Looks can deceive those uneducated
In case you did not realize, those comments are directed to Pal. I was
just puzzled how he
> -Original Message-
> From: Mike Johnston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> >>> I'll ask again: who else has signed on to produce 4/3 hardware?
>
>
>
> Actually Kodak and Fuji have both committed to support the
> new system, but
> neither have actually produced anything in the way of
> hardw
on 04.03.03 17:43, Peter Alling at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Are you sure that it wasn't Olympus that joined Kodak? It seems
> Kodak's been genesis of all the dippy, err innovative film formats
> of the past 1/2 century.
>
Peter, you are right, I wrote it by means of speed fingers :-) I don't k
On Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:02:36 -0500
Joe Wilensky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks for the info!
>
> BTW, was the Olympus's built-in flash actually part of some kind of
>
> slide-on grip for the camera? I know it was located over on the
> side (above the grip?)
Actually, you do have a point the
Kodak doesn't make the chips in their own DSLR, I don't think this is
likely. They probably own the intellectual property.
At 09:12 AM 3/4/2003 -0500, you wrote:
-Original Message-
> From: Sylwester Pietrzyk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > I'll ask again: who else has signed on to produce
Are you sure that it wasn't Olympus that joined Kodak? It seems
Kodak's been genesis of all the dippy, err innovative film formats
of the past 1/2 century.
At 09:39 AM 3/4/2003 +0100, you wrote:
on 04.03.03 4:28, tom at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Thomas,
> Still, you get double the reach, not
Speaking of Pentax, the nicest (in my opinion) of the several SF1 ad
designs appeared in the May 1987 issue.
Fred
Was that the one with the closeup of the built-in flash, with the
shining white flash tube alongside the red focus-confirmation lamp?
Or the one from a home-plate vantage point, fre
Joe wrote:
> Why did the Olympus OM77AF flop? I've come across the original ads
> for it recently in Pop Photo when doing some Pentax research. It was
> a bit ungainly looking, but didn't it share Pentax (and Nikon's)
> vision of keeping manual-focus lenses useable on the AF bodies (with
> fo
Thanks for the info!
BTW, was the Olympus's built-in flash actually part of some kind of
slide-on grip for the camera? I know it was located over on the side
(above the grip?)
And I think Pentax's SF1 was not only the first RTF flash on a 35mm
SLR, but the first built-in TTL flash as well. Doe
On 4 Mar 2003 at 7:22, Mike Johnston wrote:
> > That's why I
> > say, that these lenses presented by Olympus aren't as small as they could be,
> > taking in consideration, that they produce smaller circle of light.
>
>
> My guess is that these Olympus lenses will cover APS and probably 35mm as
>
> That's why I
> say, that these lenses presented by Olympus aren't as small as they could
> be, taking in consideration, that they produce smaller circle of light.
My guess is that these Olympus lenses will cover APS and probably 35mm as
well. Olympus is hedging its bets. If it commits an entire
On 4 Mar 2003 at 3:21, Lawrence Kwan wrote:
> Far from bland? But it looks exactly like its ZLR models E10 and E20. I
> can't see how you can win users in the professional market by making the
> camera looking like an amateurish/prosumer ZLR. It is not beautiful and
> it is not sexy, and it har
on 04.03.03 13:04, Pål Jensen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The problem is that this is equal to adding a perfect teleconverter to your
> lens with the associated reduction in quality. A lens has a certain resolution
> in line pr. mm. If you reduce the number of lines and then magnify the image
>
Sylwester wrote:
> you are almost right, as is Bruce R. in his posts. But imagine such a
> situation: Canon, Nikon or Pentax decide to produce special version of their
> DSLR called "Sports and Nature". They pack it with 4/3 CCD sensor so it got
> 2x multiplication factor. Now your FA* or EF L 300
Vic wrote:
> I don't know why we are all so "hung up" on the pro market. I can take just
> as good pictures as any pro with my cameras...
That is because in order to crac the slr market today you need the same credibility as
the market leaders, and thats pro credibility. Or, alternatively, y
on 04.03.03 4:28, tom at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Thomas,
> Still, you get double the reach, not to mention that there's no such
> thing as a 35mm 600/2.8.
you are almost right, as is Bruce R. in his posts. But imagine such a
situation: Canon, Nikon or Pentax decide to produce special versio
On Sun, 2 Mar 2003, [iso-8859-1] Pål Jensen wrote:
> And magnesium bodies. Olympus is squarely targeting the professional
> market according to the press releases. The camera is no beauty but it
> is far from bland.
Far from bland? But it looks exactly like its ZLR models E10 and E20. I
can't se
Vic,
Wonderful sentiment. Once you get past the hurdle of comparing
hardware and finally concerning yourself with just taking great
pictures, Pentax equipment really starts to shine. It feels good to
use and produces great results. Yes, there are niches where other
equipment will do better, but
I don't know why we are all so "hung up" on the pro market. I can take just
as good pictures as any pro with my cameras... and with the pentax digital
slr ... C'mon Pentax 35mm is not aimed at pros, never will... Olympus is
probably the same. Nikon and Canon can have the pros. I just want a very
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> Pentax has an established customer base and an existing system
> that the *ist D builds on. When Canon introduced the EOS they
> were one of the stronger manufactures and continued to manufacture
> their old system w
Pentax has an established customer base and an existing system
that the *ist D builds on. When Canon introduced the EOS they
were one of the stronger manufactures and continued to manufacture
their old system while support for the new one built. Olympus has
already killed the OM system. The lens
The ME-F had it's focusing motor in the lens. So did the Honeywell
AF system and several 3rd party lenses which, may or may not have used
this system before the release of True system AF cameras. I'd say putting
the focusing motor in the camera was revolutionary.
At 09:57 AM 3/3/2003 -0600, you w
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/index.html
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hard to remember these numbers.
Pål,
Now if they stupid names like *ist you wouldn't have mixed them up. :)
Bruce
Monday, March 3, 2003, 10:15:29 AM, you wrote:
PJ> Fred wrote:
>> The April 1987 issue (and, of course, there is a "lead time lag" in
>> magazine issue dates) has a "preview" of the upcoming EOS 650 and
>> EOS
Fred wrote:
> The April 1987 issue (and, of course, there is a "lead time lag" in
> magazine issue dates) has a "preview" of the upcoming EOS 650 and
> EOS 620
So I was right after all. There were two EOS bodies released initially. It was not the
630 and 620 as I though, but the 650 and 620. Ha
Warren wrote:
> Olympus never got on the 35mm AF bandwagon as it
> should have.
They did make one but it flopped. So did canon first AF system; the T80.
Pål
>> When Canon introduced the EOS, it was VERY ground breaking; no
>> one had anything like it, and AF was in it's infancy.
> No it wasn't. The first EOS was the EOS 650, introduced in March
> 1987. Canon was the third major manufacturer to switch to AF,
> after Minolta and Nikon, not the first. I
Where you sit determines what you see. If you are not a Canon fan then
it was derivative, obvious, a technical detail and not very significant.
Others of us (not necessarily big Canon fans) think that Canon was the
major driving force of change in the SLR industry for the last 20 years.
BR
[EM
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruce Rubenstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> Nobody expects a 300(600)/2.8 to be either small or light.
> The Olympus
> will not be considered a competitor to Pentax's DSLR.
> Working pros, who
> would never seriously consider the Pentax, will buy the
> Olym
Nobody expects a 300(600)/2.8 to be either small or light. The Olympus
will not be considered a competitor to Pentax's DSLR. Working pros, who
would never seriously consider the Pentax, will buy the Olympus because
it is smaller and lighter than the Nikon/Canon alternatives. Olympus has
already
On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Pål Jensen wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>
> >*And* they put the
> > focusing motor in their lenses, not in their bodies, which helped to keep
> > focusing quieter and, probably, quicker. How is this move not
> > revolutionary?
>
> Perhaps because Pentax did the same in 1982!
Good po
Chris wrote:
>*And* they put the
> focusing motor in their lenses, not in their bodies, which helped to keep
> focusing quieter and, probably, quicker. How is this move not
> revolutionary?
Perhaps because Pentax did the same in 1982!
Pål
Mike wrote:
> No it wasn't. The first EOS was the EOS 650, introduced in March 1987. Canon
> was the third major manufacturer to switch to AF, after Minolta and Nikon,
> not the first. I would say the first EOS wasn't introduced until AF had
> become mainstream. And at first, the only result was v
On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Mike Johnston wrote:
> > When Canon introduced the EOS, it
> > was VERY ground breaking; no one had anything like it,
> > and AF was in it's infancy.
>
> No it wasn't. The first EOS was the EOS 650, introduced in March 1987.
> Canon was the third major manufacturer to switch to
>> I'm old enough to remember when the Canon EF system was released. There
>> was no pro body. Only two amateur bodies that was in no manner better than
>> the competition. And only 12 lenses.
> Utter nonsense. You need a fact checker on this one.
> The EOS 650 was the first of the EOS cameras.
> When Canon introduced the EOS, it
> was VERY ground breaking; no one had anything like it,
> and AF was in it's infancy.
No it wasn't. The first EOS was the EOS 650, introduced in March 1987. Canon
was the third major manufacturer to switch to AF, after Minolta and Nikon,
not the first. I would
Peter wrote:
> Remember it is a system & you have options with
> Pentax: lots of high end glass too.
I know. But that is only a good thing if you plan to use a full frame DSLR. To me, the
smaller frame DSLR have some unique advantages nether my 35mm or MF system can compete
with. I don't want t
Well one look at the Pentax Website indicates 50 plus
lenses (and growing) that are compatible with the
Pentax, many of them compact for their speed/focal
length (e.g. 20-35mm f4). Plus the fact that there are
a million+ k mount lenses out there.
Remember it is a system & you have options with
Pen
> The 650 was quickly followed by the 630, which had even better
performance,
Not true either. There were two bodies release simultaneously. I think it
was 620 and 630 (it could have been 650 and 630). They were practical
speaking identical and amateur bodies like the competition at the time.
Peter wrote:
> AND this Olympus is not any smaller than any other
> system in body or lens size. No reason to buy in & no
> extensive system.
And where are the reason for buying into the Pentax DSLR system? The camera so far is
just a prototype. There are no compact lenses yet. Lets wait and see
Peter wrote:
> Like William said, you can't compare then to the
> situation now.
I did compare the fact that Canon didn't have lots of lenses or bodies when they
released the EOS system, and they didn't have single user of their lenses as nobody
could use something that didn't exist until a ce
Pål rote:
"I'm old enough to remember when the Canon EF system
> was released. There was no pro body. Only two
> amateur bodies that was in no manner better than the
> competition. And only 12 lenses."
Like William said, you can't compare then to the
situation now. DSLR's are far too advanced by
William wrote:
> We couldn't keep the
> things in stock, sometimes selling as many as 20 per week.
But Minolta sold 1 000 000 a year and had up to 60% of the slr market
> The 650 was quickly followed by the 630, which had even better performance,
Not true either. There were two bodies release s
William wrote:
> Utter nonsense. You need a fact checker on this one.
> The EOS 650 was the first of the EOS cameras. When it came out, the Minolta
> 7000 and Nikon 2020 were the only competition there was, and the Canon was
> light years ahead in terms of perfomance and style.
Not true. The Pen
- Original Message -
From: "Pål Jensen"
Subject: Re: Olympus going pro
>
> I'm old enough to remember when the Canon EF system was released. There
was no pro body. Only two amateur bodies that was in no manner better than
the competition. And only 12 lenses.
Utter
I still think that most digital shooters now still
want a film-like SLR. Let's face it, almost all (if
not all) pro's just switched their Canon & Nikon film
cameras for a digital version. Plus, who wants to dump
all there Canon & Nikon glasss for what? 2-4 lenses
from Olympus? Plus they'd need a pr
"I'd guess that for a start there are a lot of E
> series users who are wanting to
> jump to the next level, this would be the answer for
> many of them."
U...I suppose this is a joke? Tongue planted in
cheek?
--- Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2 Mar 2003 at 13:53, Peter Jan
On 2 Mar 2003 at 13:53, Peter Jansen wrote:
> So what makes you think this? Since the EOS? Laugh.
> This Olympus could be the biggest disaster since the
> Hindenberg (sp.)! When Canon introduced the EOS, it
> was VERY ground breaking; no one had anything like it,
> and AF was in it's infancy. No c
> Just like what has been discussed here before: Canon
> and Nikon have cornered the pro market and I don't
> think this will change! Minolta tried with 35mm and
> flopped.
Well, actually I'm not that sure. Look at the lenses they're supposed to
show - two of them are very long teles. I think a sm
So what makes you think this? Since the EOS? Laugh.
This Olympus could be the biggest disaster since the
Hindenberg (sp.)! When Canon introduced the EOS, it
was VERY ground breaking; no one had anything like it,
and AF was in it's infancy. No comparison.
Just like what has been discussed here befo
But theres nothing wider than a 28mm equivelant for it!
- Original Message -
From: "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 8:03 AM
Subject: Olympus going pro
> I wrote:
>
>
> > Four new bodies and profe
I wrote:
> Four new bodies and professional standard and wheather sealing. I believe Olympus is
> getting my DSLR business!
And magnesium bodies. Olympus is squarely targeting the professional market according
to the press releases. The camera is no beauty but it is far from bland. I believe
65 matches
Mail list logo
